Here’s the release from American River (Chris Williams):
The Trump Administration [on January 23, 2020] announced the release of its Revised Definition of the Waters of the United States, a sweeping federal rule that drastically weakens the reach and authority of the Clean Water Act to protect the Nation’s rivers, small streams and wetlands.
In 2001 and 2006, two convoluted Supreme Court rulings created uncertainty about the extent of the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction. The Obama administration engaged in a lengthy rulemaking process to clarify the authority of the Act to protect small streams and wetlands that are so important to river health and contribute to the drinking water supplies of two in three Americans. Following years of painstaking scientific, economic and legal analysis, hundreds of public meetings, and a comment period that produced over a million comments, the “Clean Water Rule” was adopted in 2015, reaffirming the Act’s broad authority “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
The Trump administration’s rule replaces the Clean Water Rule, undermining protection of rivers, wetlands, and clean water. It uproots decades of regulatory practice and judicial precedent with little public input and virtually no scientific analysis. It is setting aside the findings of over 1,200 peer-reviewed studies, collected in EPA’s own Connectivity Report, that demonstrate the vital importance of small streams and wetlands to the water quality, flow, and overall ecological health of larger rivers downstream. The rule deals a crippling blow to the Act’s authority to protect wetlands, excluding more than half of the nation’s wetlands from the Clean Water Act’s reach, and eliminating protection for almost 20% of the nation’s rivers and streams.
Bob Irvin, President and CEO of American Rivers made the following statement regarding the Trump Administration’s Revised Definition of the Waters of the United States:
“The Trump administration’s Dirty Water Rule is an affront to the health and safety of hundreds of millions of people across the country who depend on rivers and streams for clean water. It is reckless and capricious, reversing the Clean Water Rule which was firmly based on sound legal and scientific analyses, extensive fact-finding and stakeholder input, and broad popular support.
President Trump has frequently said he wants ‘crystal clean water.’ This rule will result in dirty water, plain and simple.”
Elected officials and advocacy groups in Colorado responded to a change to a federal rule on water protections.
The previous rule, called “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, was established in 2015 by the Obama administration. That rule, however, was under intense scrutiny by Republicans, property rights groups, and several industries for what they perceived as federal regulatory overreach, citing it’s expansive interpretation.
That rule was repealed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army in September.
The new rule, called the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, was announced on Thursday at a builders’ industry trade show in Las Vegas.
The Trump administration says the new rule will still protect navigable waters from pollution but also will provide regulatory relief and more certainty for development.
“EPA and the Army are providing much needed regulatory certainty and predictability for American farmers, landowners and businesses to support the economy and accelerate critical infrastructure projects,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement. “After decades of landowners relying on expensive attorneys to determine what water on their land may or may not fall under federal regulations, our new Navigable Waters Protection Rule strikes the proper balance between Washington and the states in managing land and water resources while protecting our nation’s navigable waters, and it does so within the authority Congress provided.”
The new rule creates four different categories for bodies of water to be federally regulated under the Clean Water Act, and excludes certain types of bodies of water such as ditches.
The new rule drew broad criticism from Colorado Democrats and environmental groups that work in the state.
“In Colorado, we value our clean water. Our rivers, streams, and lakes serve as the lifeblood of our communities and help support our thriving outdoor and agriculture industries,” Gov. Jared Polis said. “Our administration will continue to reject attempts by the Trump administration to gut proven ways to protect our health and environment.”
U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., tweeted that the new rule “removes protections for smaller bodies of water & rolls back federal protections for smaller headwaters that have been protected for almost 50 years – including the Colorado River.”
Western Resource Advocates, an environmental advocacy group headquartered in Boulder, in a tweet urged state lawmakers “to stand w/ their communities & lead where the federal government won’t. We’re calling on our leaders throughout the West to come together & safeguard healthy rivers & clean water.”
Republicans and some industry groups praised the rule change for reducing regulations.
“The uncertain interpretation of the term ‘navigable waters’ created by WOTUS has left farmers, ranchers and private land owners unprotected from federal land and water grabs,” U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., said “Over the last three years, President Trump’s administration has worked to repeal unnecessary and burdensome regulations with updated versions that better suit the needs of our agricultural communities.”
Don Shawcroft, president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, which advocates for agricultural interests, said the new “rule provides clarity and stability for farmers and ranchers everywhere, ensuring that farmland remains healthy and productive, and our waters protected. It is a major win for Colorado agriculture.”
Both the Colorado Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business-Colorado supported the rule change.
The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers announced this past week that they will roll back much of the 2015 clean water regulations known collectively as Waters of the U.S.
Whether that’s good or bad depends, as usual, on who you are, but membership in a particular group doesn’t necessarily mean support or opposition is consistent. Most of agriculture seems to be happy, but some ag groups are suing to block the rule rollback…
On the other side of the coin are farmers, ranchers and livestock feeders, along with those who manage surface water in the western U.S., who hailed the rollback as a victory of reason and logic, and respect for states’ rights to manage natural resources within their borders.
Colorado Corn released a statement Thursday in which CCGA President Dave Cure, a Wray, Colo., corn grower, asserted again the claim that farmers are better stewards that they’re given credit for.
“Farmers rely on clean water to make a living and often go above and beyond regulatory requirements to be avid stewards of all their resources,” Cure said. “The new rule clarifies oversight on dry land that is sometimes wet, something the 2015 WOTUS rule did not. These and other improvements allow the kind of farming practices to protect the environment to continue and new ones to be implemented without confusion.”
The Fertilizer Institute also praised the rule rollback saying the new rules “ensure a future with both clean water and clear rules.”
Even in California, supposed bastion of socialist over-regulation, California Farm Bureau President Jamie Johansson said this week’s release of the Navigable Waters Protection encourages farmers and ranchers.
“You won’t find a stronger ally than farmers and ranchers when it comes to protecting land and natural resources, because they depend on those resources to produce food and farm products,” Johansson said. “The new rule promises clear guidelines to help farmers maintain and improve water quality while retaining the flexibility they need to manage their land.”
Those who opposed the 2015 rules charged that the rules were unclear and, thus, overreaching. They claim that the regulations extend the EPA’s and the Army Corps’ regulatory reach over what is termed “navigable waters,” which ranchers, farmers and states argue gives the federal agencies’ unprecedented authority over drainage ditches and nearly anything else that can contain water. It was even supposed, among Logan County water experts, that Pawnee Creek, which runs water only once every few years, would be regulated under WOTUS.
The apparent intent of the rules was to clean up not just America’s major waterways, but also anything that feeds into them. After all, how can the Mississippi River be cleaned up if its tributaries are dumping millions of tons of pollution from upstream into it? Thus, the Big Muddy would best be protected by cleaning up the Missouri, the Platte, the South Platte, the Poudre, the Big Thompson and the Saint Vrain. That might make sense if there was no state oversight of surface water quality in Colorado. But there is. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment – a state-sized version of the EPA – has stringent rules about water quality in Colorado, which is why all six municipalities in Logan County are spending millions of dollars to upgrade their water supplies and wastewater treatment systems.
Colorado also has decided that it was wasteful to have both the CDPHE and the Department of Agriculture setting regulations for water and air quality for agricultural producers, so CDPHE turned that regulation over to CDA. Federal oversight of the quality of surface water in Colorado would greatly complicate efforts by ag producers to make a living while still protecting the environment they depend on for that living.
That’s why, in 2015, Colorado’s Attorney General, Republican Cynthia Coffman, joined the attorneys general in 12 other states to sue to block WOTUS. North Dakota led the charge and was joined by Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota and Wyoming, as well as the New Mexico Environment Department and State Engineer. Notice that all but Missouri are western states whose water laws are modeled after Colorado’s Doctrine of Prior Appropriation. It is always a fear in the West that when the federal government gets involved in water regulations, DOPA, also known as the Colorado Doctrine because this is where it was born, will be usurped by federal regulations modeled along the riparian doctrine best known east of the Mississippi. More than a century of water law and interstate compacts could be thrown into turmoil as a result.
Not everyone in the West was unhappy with the 2015 rules, however. According to Pamela King, reporter for E&E News, the New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association sued the that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in October last year claiming that the government cannot revert to 1986 regulations governing which wetlands and waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act. At that time there were 22 states in which the WOTUS rule was still in effect, and it was blocked in 27 other states.
The situation is fluid, so to speak, and a search of newspaper and webzine headlines on the subject shows anywhere from 12 to 18 states trying to block WOTUS and a fresh round of lawsuits shows states lining up to sue to keep the WOTUS regulations.
Through it all both supporters and opponents identify the push and pull by the president in office at the time. The 2015 regulations are called Obama rules, although they were adopted by supposedly autonomous and non-partisan bureaucrats at the EPA and Corps of Engineers; similarly, the repeal is laid at Donald Trump’s doorstep, although it was done by those same agencies after gaining input from myriad citizen organizations.
And Colorado still isn’t quite sure what it wants to do about WOTUS. In September the new attorney general, Democrat Phil Weiser, said that if he thought the EPA rollback went too far, he might take legal action. Attempts by the Journal-Advocate to find out whether that action has been taken yet hadn’t been fruitful by time of publication.
I understand the farmers and ranchers point of view. I don’t worry about them much, they know the pitfalls of modern chemicals used in Ag, strive to be responsible stewards of the land, and know that developed Ag land has an exemption under the 2015 rules. However, the states and the U.S. government needs to keep a tight grip on the extractive industries and irresponsible folks that locate in rural areas and don’t pay for their pollution.
Clean-water rules unveiled Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency could remove the vast majority of Arizona’s waterways from federal oversight, a change environmentalists call bad news in a region where water is “super precious.”
While farmers may save legal fees under the new Navigable Waters Protection Rule, the government likely will not.
“We’ll absolutely be fighting it in court,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, who said the new rule will be one of President Donald Trump’s “ugliest legacies.”
“This sickening gift to polluters will allow wetlands, streams and rivers across a vast stretch of America to be obliterated with pollution,” Hartl said in a prepared statement.
Critics said the impact will be particularly strong in states like Arizona, where a 2008 EPA study said 94% of the waterways are ephemeral and intermittent – exactly the sort of waterways that will be exempt from federal regulation under the new rule…
The change is the latest step in the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back the Waters of the United States rule enacted under President Barack Obama. The so-called WOTUS rule was a response to complaints by landowners that there was no clear definition of waterways that fell under the regulatory control of the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers…
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality declined comment on the new federal rule Thursday, except to say it is reviewing the proposal to “fully understand how it impacts Arizona waterways.” But, in anticipation of the new federal rule, the state has been working for some time on a Waters of Arizona definition that is aimed to fill gaps left by the federal approach and protect state waterways through a “local control approach.”
Wheeler said federal officials had states in mind when they created their new plan.
“Our new rule recognizes this relationship and strikes a proper balance between Washington, D.C., and the states, and clearly details which waters are subject to federal control under the Clean Water Act, and importantly, which waters fall solely under the state’s jurisdiction,” Wheeler said…
But Rep. Raul Grijalva tweeted that what he called the “#DirtyWaterRule endangers the drinking water for the millions of Arizonans and other Western residents who depend on the Colorado River.” Grijalva, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, added that “clean water is a human right.”
The Center for Biological Diversity cited 75 endangered species that could be threatened by the change, with Hartl specifically noting the yellow-billed cuckoo and the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, both of which live near streams.
“People and wildlife need clean water to thrive. Destroying half of our nation’s streams and wetlands will be one of Trump’s ugliest legacies,” Hartl said.
The updated policy excludes some wetlands and all ephemeral streams — which only flow after a heavy rain or intense snowmelt.
They act as tributaries to rivers that millions of people across the southwest count on for drinking water and irrigation.
In Colorado, about 70 percent of all streams will be affected by the new rule. In New Mexico and Nevada, it’s upwards of 90 percent.
FromThe Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):
Federal agencies on Thursday finalized a new clean-water rule that supporters including U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton say provides much-needed regulatory certainty.
But opponents, including the administration of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, say it will result in the weakest protections since the passage of the Clean Water Act nearly a half a century ago…
Tipton said in a statement that the previous uncertainty “left farmers, ranchers and private land owners unprotected from federal land and water grabs.” He said the clarification provided by the new rule “will restore long-standing states’ water rights and greater certainty for the Coloradans whose livelihoods depend on availability of water.”
But the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is criticizing the rollback, saying it could impact 70% of waters in the state…
“The EPA’s announcement today is alarming as it puts our precious waters at risk,” Jill Hunsaker Ryan, the department’s executive director, said in a CDPHE news release.
“In the absence of federal leadership, we are going to do everything possible to protect streams and wetlands in Colorado,” Patrick Pfaltzgraff, director of the Water Quality Control Division, said in the same release.
Polis released a statement saying in part, “Our administration will continue to reject attempts by the Trump administration to gut proven ways to protect our health and environment.”
Last April, the Polis administration and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser submitted joint comments on the rule proposal that was finalized this week. Their letter said that as with many western states, the large majority of Colorado’s stream miles are intermittent or ephemeral. The state said the proposal would shrink federal jurisdiction far below guidance issued in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration “to a smaller number of Colorado waters” than what presidential administrations have required since the Clean Water Act’s passage. While many ephemeral waters aren’t jurisdictional under the 2008 guidance, the new rule categorically excludes them from jurisdiction, “regardless of their connection to downstream waters,” the state wrote.
It wrote that the proposed rule “shifts the burden onto Colorado to protect federally excluded wetlands and waters, thereby saddling Colorado with the burden of protecting the quality of water received by nineteen states that receive Colorado waters.”
However, the Polis administration and Weiser, in the letter, supported the rule’s continued exclusion of prior converted cropland and its “recognition of the importance of upholding state sovereignty to administer and allocate water.”
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday announced the shift, which significantly narrows what waters can be defined as “navigable,” and thus subject to federal rules. It also lifts federal oversight for most groundwater, many wetlands and some streams, passing those smaller water sources to state and local control.
At a news conference Thursday in Colorado Springs, Mayor John Suthers, Republican U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn and EPA bosses praised the new rule, saying it will be bring clarity and certainty to businesses and farmers.
The Trump administration on Thursday will finalize a rule to strip away environmental protections for streams, wetlands and other water bodies, handing a victory to farmers, fossil fuel producers and real estate developers who said Obama-era rules had shackled them with onerous and unnecessary burdens.
From Day 1 of his administration, President Trump vowed to repeal President Barack Obama’s “Waters of the United States” regulation, which had frustrated rural landowners. His new rule, which will be implemented in the coming weeks, is the latest step in the Trump administration’s push to repeal or weaken nearly 100 environmental rules and laws, loosening or eliminating rules on climate change, clean air, chemical pollution, coal mining, oil drilling and endangered species protections…
His administration had completed the first step of its demise in September with the rule’s repeal.
His replacement on Thursday will complete the process, not only rolling back 2015 rules that guaranteed protections under the 1972 Clean Water Act to certain wetlands and streams that run intermittently or run temporarily underground, but also relieves landowners of the need to seek permits that the Environmental Protection Agency had considered on a case-by-case basis before the Obama rule.
It also gives President Trump a major policy achievement to bring to his political base while his impeachment trial continues.
“Farmers coalesced against the E.P.A. being able to come onto their land, and he’s delivering,” said Jessica Flanagain, a Republican strategist in Lincoln, Neb. “This is bigger news for agricultural producers than whatever is happening with the sideshow in D.C.,” she added…
The new water rule will remove federal protections from more than half the nation’s wetlands, and hundreds of thousands of small waterways. That would for the first time in decades allow landowners and property developers to dump pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers directly into many of those waterways, and to destroy or fill in wetlands for construction projects.
“This will be the biggest loss of clean water protection the country has ever seen,” said Blan Holman, a lawyer specializing in federal water policy at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “This puts drinking water for millions of Americans at risk of contamination from unregulated pollution. This is not just undoing the Obama rule. This is stripping away protections that were put in place in the ’70s and ’80s that Americans have relied on for their health.”
The Obama rule protected about 60 percent of the nation’s waterways, including large bodies of water such as the Chesapeake Bay, Mississippi River and Puget Sound, and smaller headwaters, wetlands, seasonal streams and streams that run temporarily underground. It limited the discharge of pollutants such as fertilizers, pesticides and industrial chemicals into those waters…
The new rule, written by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, will retain federal protections of large bodies of water, as well as larger rivers and streams that flow into them and wetlands that lie adjacent to them. But it removes protections for many other waters, including wetlands that are not adjacent to large bodies of water, some seasonal streams that flow for only a portion of the year, “ephemeral” streams that only flow after rainstorms, and water that temporarily flows through underground passages.
Legal experts say that Mr. Trump’s replacement rule would go further than simply repealing and replacing the 2015 Obama rule — it would also eliminate protections to smaller headwaters that have been implemented for decades under the 1972 Clean Water Act.
“This is rolling back federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act further than it’s ever been before,” said Patrick Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School. “Waters that have been protected for almost 50 years will no longer be protected under the Clean Water Act.”
That could open millions of acres of pristine wetlands to pollution or destruction, and allow chemicals and other pollutants to be discharged into smaller headland waters that eventually drain into larger water bodies, experts in water management said. Wetlands play key roles in filtering surface water and protecting against floods, while also providing wildlife habitat.
Ean Thomas Tafoya, a Colorado-based clean water activist with the group GreenLatinos, said the new rule could harm the quality of the water in the Colorado River, which supplies water to 17 western states.
“We are a headwater state,” he said. “This rollback will affect almost every single stream that flows into the Colorado River.”
Mr. Tafoya said about 90 percent of the streams that supply the Colorado River run only after rainfall or snowmelt. Under the new Trump water rule, many of those streams will not qualify for federal pollution protection. But Mr. Tafoya said pollutants such as chemical pesticides that end up in those dry stream beds could nonetheless be swept into larger bodies of water when the streams begin running after the spring thaw of mountain snow.
“The toxics or poisons that lie dormant will still be there when the streams are reactivated,” he said. “They will still get into the larger bodies of water.”
Government scientists, even those appointed by the Trump administration, say those concerns are justified. The E.P.A.’s Scientific Advisory Board, a panel of 41 scientists responsible for evaluating the scientific integrity of the agency’s regulations, concluded that the new Trump water rule ignores science by “failing to acknowledge watershed systems.” They found “no scientific justification” for excluding certain bodies of water from protection under the new regulations, concluding that pollutants from those smaller and seasonal bodies of water can still have a significant impact on the health of larger water systems.
Those scientific findings, although they are not reflected in the administration’s policy, could still play a role in the fate of the new rule. Several state attorneys general are expected to join with environmental groups to sue to overturn the Trump water rule, and those groups are likely to cite those findings as evidence that the rule is not legally sound.
“The legal standing all has to do with whether you have a rational basis for what you’re doing,” said Mr. Parenteau. “And when you have experts saying you’re not adhering to the science, that’s not rational, it’s arbitrary.”
Normally this column deals with water issues and water folks in Central Colorado, but in the aftermath of the weirdest election season in my lifetime this iteration will take on a statewide and national flavor.
Del Norte rancher Travis Smith, currently serving on the Colorado Water Conservation Board, likes to remind folks in the water business, that “We are more connected than we’d like to admit.”
With all the uncertainty before us, is it possible to glean some idea of the effects the voters have wrought upon themselves?
President-elect Trump is rumored to be about to install a non-scientist, Myron Ebell, as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Ebell has spoken out against the “hoax” of global warming, and many hail his ascension as necessary to clip the wings of a federal government run wild under President Obama.
Martha Henriques writes in The International Business Times, “Climate deniers have been on the sidelines for years. What will happen now they’re in charge?”
A lot will happen no matter who is in power. Chris Mooney writes in The Washington Post:
“It’s polar night there now – the sun isn’t rising in much of the Arctic. That’s when the Arctic is supposed to get super-cold, when the sea ice that covers the vast Arctic Ocean is supposed to grow and thicken.
“But in fall of 2016 – which has been a zany year for the region, with multiple records set for low levels of monthly sea ice – something is totally off. The Arctic is super-hot, even as a vast area of cold polar air has been displaced over Siberia.”
Local Environmental Protection Agency Projects
The Arkansas headwaters up at Leadville were an acid mine drainage collection system in the days before the EPA’s California Gulch Superfund designation. Now there is a treatment plant run by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at the mouth of the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel and a gold medal trout stream below the site.
There was a massive fish kill in the Alamosa River downstream from the gold cyanidation operation at Summitville.
Some folks blame their cancer and loss of friends and family down the Arkansas River at Cañon City where the Cotter Mill uranium processing operation polluted the groundwater.
These are Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites, all of them. The Feds are the only organization capable of this type of cleanup. Colorado can’t afford projects of this magnitude due to the restraints of TABOR, and most counties are clipping off workers or freezing payroll just to keep plowing snow and managing roads.
The EPA took a beating from Republicans after the Gold King Mine Spill into the Animas River in 2015. The agency always admitted that opening up the mine was a mistake and they’ve steadily worked on mitigation planning and water quality control.
“San Juan County Administrator Willy Tookey, too, heaped praise on the EPA for reimbursing the more than $349,000 the county spent in response to the spill, as well as contributing to the local economy,” – The Durango Herald.
The recreation economy has benefitted from EPA projects and the Clean Water Act, so a dismantling of the regulations adds to business uncertainty and environmental angst.
State Control of Water Resources
Every candidate from the top of the Colorado ballot to the bottom stood firm regarding water resource administration. Colorado water rights law and administration should be continued as controlling over federal water rights, they say.
Amendment 71 and Power to the People
There may some certainty with respect to Amendment 71. Colorado may not see another citizen initiative due to it. The oil and gas industry and Denver politicians hoodwinked Coloradans into giving up power. Here’s what the Colorado Legislative Council had to say before the election:
“Amendment 71 adds a requirement that signatures be collected statewide for the citizen-initiative process and increases the percentage of votes required to adopt changes to the constitution in most situations …
“Of the total required signatures, some must be collected from each of the state’s 35 senate districts in an amount of at least two percent of the registered voters in each district.”
The new signature requirement will be quite a trick to pull off. The last time that many registered voters agreed on something was while voting down Referendum A in 2003. The referendum would have established a two billion dollar fund for water projects to ease some of the pain incurred during the historic 2002 drought. Proponents didn’t have a project list and the referendum failed in all 64 counties.
The opponents of the oil and gas industry could have roped in the entire industry with their 5,000-foot setback requirement initiative and they may be back. I wonder if two percent of Weld, Routt, or Moffat will sign on?
Watershed Health and Fire Sharing
The U.S. Forest Service budget has been taking a beating with the massive wildfires in the West over the past few seasons. As we go to press the new administration has not named their choice for Interior Secretary.
State governors are stepping up to advocate against “fire borrowing” in the new administration. The Western Governors’ Association recently wrote:
“Western governors have urged timely action by Congress to end the practice of ‘fire borrowing’ used by the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to fund wildfire suppression activities.
“We strongly urge Congress to resolve this enduring issue as among its highest priorities when it returns to complete the business of the 114th Congress.
“Fire borrowing is a budgetary practice that occurs when federal agencies divert funds from forest health and fire prevention programs to fight wildfires.”
John Orr lives in Denver. He became interested in writing the “rough” history of Colorado water after the failure of Referendum A during the November 2003 election. No one was aggregating water news for Coloradans so John stepped into the void. He works as a water resources administrator for a Front Range utility when he isn’t linking and writing. http://www.coyotegulch.net.
Support Colorado independent media, please click here to subscribe to Colorado Central.